If I typed up the math on this one correctly, the display in the 13.3" Air should measure 11.28"x7.05". The 11.6" model has dimensions of 11.8"x7.56". This suggests that the 13.3" display would have fit into the 11.6" case with a bezel of around 0.25" on the sides as well as top/bottom. The actual bezel of the 11.6" MBA measures 0.8" on each side, and 0.9" on each top/bottom of the LCD. That seems like a lot of wasted space...
One naturally wonders what the reason for the wide bezels might be. Is it simply that owing to the tapered edges the top cases can not accomodate larger displays? In other words, did Apple sacrifice ample screen real estate simply to give people the illusion that the MBA is even thinner than it really is? In my opinion, this would have been a horrible design "compromise". However the fact that the same approach as in the old MBA was used for both the new 13.3" as well as the 11.6" suggests that Jobs/Ive are content with the design, so could there be a better reason to leave the bezels wide, and put a 11.6" display in a footprint that could have accommodated a 13.3" one?
Thoughts/suggestions welcome...
One naturally wonders what the reason for the wide bezels might be. Is it simply that owing to the tapered edges the top cases can not accomodate larger displays? In other words, did Apple sacrifice ample screen real estate simply to give people the illusion that the MBA is even thinner than it really is? In my opinion, this would have been a horrible design "compromise". However the fact that the same approach as in the old MBA was used for both the new 13.3" as well as the 11.6" suggests that Jobs/Ive are content with the design, so could there be a better reason to leave the bezels wide, and put a 11.6" display in a footprint that could have accommodated a 13.3" one?
Thoughts/suggestions welcome...